SpaceX Crashed Another Rocket Onto an Ocean Barge

[C130]

lol@ these Chinese posters.


primary mission was to send a satellite into low orbit WHICH IT DID

secondary mission was to land the first stage rocket on a barge 100's of miles from land.

to make matters worse was the weather and 10-15 feet waves.

it hit the mark but one of the legs gave out.

don't worry my Chinese friends SpaceX will have plenty of more tries to perfect it


I won't be surprised either when China,Russia,Europe, and even NASA copy what SpaceX has done.

 

[Dungeness]

That's where you are wrong. Space shuttle is never about affordability and economic concern, but it is a breakthrough required for future space mission.

.

Born in 1968 at the height of the Apollo program, the Space Shuttle was designed to fulfill two basic roles in NASA post-Apollo manned flight objectives.

The first goal of the Space Shuttle program was to provide NASA with an efficient, re-usable method of carrying astronauts to and from a permanently manned space station.

At the time, NASA envisioned a space station which would be staffed by 12 to 24 people. The space station was intended to assure a permanent manned U.S. presence in space following the Apollo lunar landings.

The space station would support a plethora of scientific research objectives, plus act as an engineering and support base for manned journeys to the planets.

In addition, NASA believed that Space Shuttles could serve as multi-purpose satellite delivery vehicles with the potential to completely replace Atlas-Centaur, Delta and Titan rockets.

The words "cheap" and "routine" were the words which most closely matched the objectives for Space Shuttles as expressed by NASA. Of course, history would prove otherwise.

Cape Canaveral Rocket and Missile Programs: Space Shuttle Program

 

[razgriz19]

I think the tilting caused the leg to break. It can only go so far before the stress is too much. It worked on land but not a moving barge.

They already said the leg brace collar didn't lock. If that's the case one can easily bend that leg with a tap of a hammer.
And I'm sure they worked out all the math related to stresses, and it's not like they used to this rocket before. this was the first flight. Last one that landed successfully is probably still going through check ups

 

[Dungeness]

And I would not say US gave up the program because of hundred of billions and 6 live later (The program cost 209 billions in total, with 134 launch which account for 1.5 billions per launch) it is actually quite cheap in cost for manned space mission against 200-500 million per launch for non-reusable rocket (And don't forget you still need to factor in the cost of rocket itself)

The main reason why the space shuttle fleet retire is due to its age, it turn 31 this year.....

Soyuz is much older.

 

[C130]

I even predicted the landing would be a failure

SpaceX Plans Drone Ship Rocket Landing for Jan. 17 Launch

-it's the older design of the Falcon 9 v1.1
-it's landing on the barge which is harder

Falcon 9 v1.1 full thrust will be more successful. I predict a 90% success rate of the first stage on land and the barge

China's Long March 3B, Long March 5,7
Russia's Proton-M, Angara
ESA-Ariane 5 and 6
ULA- Atlas V

will not be able to compete with Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy in the next 5 years

until they copy what SpaceX has done

this is a fact.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Wow, a part from the failed attempt, the actual landing the rocket looked badass!! Failure is bound to happen if it's attempting something new like that. Love both SpaceX and Tesla.

Cant wait till they validate the method and tech and see it done with a rocket in much larger scale.

 

[jhungary]

Born in 1968 at the height of the Apollo program, the Space Shuttle was designed to fulfill two basic roles in NASA post-Apollo manned flight objectives.

The first goal of the Space Shuttle program was to provide NASA with an efficient, re-usable method of carrying astronauts to and from a permanently manned space station.

At the time, NASA envisioned a space station which would be staffed by 12 to 24 people. The space station was intended to assure a permanent manned U.S. presence in space following the Apollo lunar landings.

The space station would support a plethora of scientific research objectives, plus act as an engineering and support base for manned journeys to the planets.

In addition, NASA believed that Space Shuttles could serve as multi-purpose satellite delivery vehicles with the potential to completely replace Atlas-Centaur, Delta and Titan rockets.

The words "cheap" and "routine" were the words which most closely matched the objectives for Space Shuttles as expressed by NASA. Of course, history would prove otherwise.

Cape Canaveral Rocket and Missile Programs: Space Shuttle Program

lol, you are using a user blog to try to clear your point, that's the same as using Air Power Australia to try and proof F-35 is worthless....

The first goal of the Space Shuttle program was to provide NASA with an efficient, re-usable method of carrying astronauts to and from a permanently manned space station.

an efficient, re-usable method does not necessary cheap in a pound by pound comparison, as I said, a manned space mission would cost about 200-500 million to launch before the rocket being consumed.

In fact, I would say the cost per launch is slightly favour the Space Shuttle than Saturn V rocket

Space shuttle program cost $209 billions to develop, each flight launch cost range from 500 million to 1.5 billions, which 134 mission will cost (on average 750 mil per mission) that,s 100 billion for mission, 209 billions for program, totalling 309 billions for 134 launch

Saturn Rocket have a program cost 6.417 billions progject cost in 1970s (47 billions today money) and 500 millions per launch cost in 1970 ($3.2 billion today money) If we use Saturn V for 134 launch, the total cost will be 475 billions in today dollar.

Using space shuttle save a whopping 100 billions dollar in today term.

Apollo Program Budget Appropriations
NASA's Shuttle Program Cost $209 Billion — Was it Worth It? | NASA & Space Shuttle Program | Mars & Space Exploration

 

[gambit]

lol, you are using a user blog to try to clear your point, that's the same as using Air Power Australia to try and proof F-35 is worthless....

The first goal of the Space Shuttle program was to provide NASA with an efficient, re-usable method of carrying astronauts to and from a permanently manned space station.

an efficient, re-usable method does not necessary cheap in a pound by pound comparison, as I said, a manned space mission would cost about 200-500 million to launch before the rocket being consumed.

In fact, I would say the cost per launch is slightly favour the Space Shuttle than Saturn V rocket

Space shuttle program cost $209 billions to develop, each flight launch cost range from 500 million to 1.5 billions, which 134 mission will cost (on average 750 mil per mission) that,s 100 billion for mission, 209 billions for program, totalling 309 billions for 134 launch

Saturn Rocket have a program cost 6.417 billions progject cost in 1970s (47 billions today money) and 500 millions per launch cost in 1970 ($3.2 billion today money) If we use Saturn V for 134 launch, the total cost will be 475 billions in today dollar.

Using space shuttle save a whopping 100 billions dollar in today term.

Apollo Program Budget Appropriations
NASA's Shuttle Program Cost $209 Billion — Was it Worth It? | NASA & Space Shuttle Program | Mars & Space Exploration

How dare you do basic research before you post...!!!

 

[Dungeness]

lol, you are using a user blog to try to clear your point, that's the same as using Air Power Australia to try and proof F-35 is worthless....

The first goal of the Space Shuttle program was to provide NASA with an efficient, re-usable method of carrying astronauts to and from a permanently manned space station.

an efficient, re-usable method does not necessary cheap in a pound by pound comparison, as I said, a manned space mission would cost about 200-500 million to launch before the rocket being consumed.

In fact, I would say the cost per launch is slightly favour the Space Shuttle than Saturn V rocket

Space shuttle program cost $209 billions to develop, each flight launch cost range from 500 million to 1.5 billions, which 134 mission will cost (on average 750 mil per mission) that,s 100 billion for mission, 209 billions for program, totalling 309 billions for 134 launch

Saturn Rocket have a program cost 6.417 billions progject cost in 1970s (47 billions today money) and 500 millions per launch cost in 1970 ($3.2 billion today money) If we use Saturn V for 134 launch, the total cost will be 475 billions in today dollar.

Using space shuttle save a whopping 100 billions dollar in today term.

Apollo Program Budget Appropriations
NASA's Shuttle Program Cost $209 Billion — Was it Worth It? | NASA & Space Shuttle Program | Mars & Space Exploration

I am not sure why you are arguing lowering the cost per flight was not one of the original objectives of SSP. I could google tons of documents to prove your are wrong, but I will just end here. I believe the concept of "reusable" itself is for the purpose of cost efficiency, just like what SpaceX is trying to achieve here. The cost of Space Shuttle Program was getting out of hand, so it was ended.

 

[C130]

the Space Shuttle was a total waste of money. yeah it had some good moments like launching the Hubble Space Telescope, then fixing the HST, and then the subsequent missions to fix and upgrade the HST, but besides that it was very inefficient compared to the Soyuz.


this is the future.

if there is ever another space shuttel or advance space shuttle it better go beyond low earth orbit,

 

[Dungeness]

How dare you do basic research before you post...!!!

Here is your "basic research":

The Space Review: Space Shuttle 2.0: What did we learn?

 

[jhungary]

Soyuz is much older.

Well, the Russian did not launch the original 1960s Soyuz rocket that was build in the 1960s in 2015.....The design of Soyuz is from the 1960s but the rocket is new build.

On the other hand,

SS Columbia is made in 1980
SS Challenger is made in 1983
SS Discovery is made in 1983
SS Atlantis is made in 1985
SS Endeavour is made in 1991.

I am not sure why you are arguing lowering the cost per flight was not one of the original objectives of SSP. I could google tons of documents to prove your are wrong, but I will just end here. I believe the concept of "reusable" itself is for the purpose of cost efficiency, just like what SpaceX is trying to achieve here. The cost of Space Shuttle Program was getting out of hand, so it was ended.

The thing is, IT IS CHEAPER to launch heavy load into space by using Space Shuttle, rather than keep using Saturn V rocket.

Actually, my quote of 700 millions per launch is high, NASA pegged the average launch cost is 450 millions.

What a Space Shuttle Launch Costs

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration pegged the average shuttle launch cost at $450 million.

Not all launch is like the last launch that cost 1.2 billions USD in 2011, some launch are quite cheap, mostly depend on the cargo.

The source I quote above actually have a higher cost per launch if you factoring EVERYTHING. That's 1.55 billions per launch (payload, fuel, maintenance, labour). And when you put 134 mission on it, plus the program cost, it's still 410 billions, would still be cheaper than if we use Saturn V to launch 134 mission, that's 475 billions.

Thus space shuttle is cheaper, both in per launch cost and overall cost

How dare you do basic research before you post...!!!

well, it's just a few second search

 

[F-22Raptor]

SpaceX Crashes Falcon 9 Rocket Onto Ocean Barge | Re/code

SpaceX Crashed Another Rocket Onto an Ocean Barge

SpaceX / Twitter

SHARE:
Holiday weekends are meant for relaxing things like Netflix and NFL football, right? Not at SpaceX!

Elon Musk’s SpaceX on Sunday launched one of its Falcon 9 rockets into low-Earth orbit to deploy a satellite for some of its government partners, including NASA. The rocket launch was nothing new — SpaceX has launched plenty over the past few years and the satellite was successfully deployed. The trick on Sunday? Returning the rocket, in one piece, onto a floating barge out in the Pacific ocean.


Sounds pretty spectacular! Unfortunately, it didn’t work (although not for lack of accuracy). The rocket came down on target but had issues with one of its landing legs, according to a tweet from Musk.

Update: Here’s a video of the landing — which was incredibly close — that Musk shared to his Instagram followers.



Sunday was the third time SpaceX attempted an ocean landing. It crashed two rockets in 2015 attempting the same thing. Those crashes also resulted in some pretty surreal video footage you can watch below. SpaceX did return a rocket successfully on land to Cape Canaveral late last month.

• Contact Kurt Wagner:
• @KurtWagner8

https://twitter.com/x/status/1473236198722179072

This thread didn’t go so well for you Beast.

 

[Beast]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1473236198722179072

This thread didn’t go so well for you Beast.

Who needs recovery rocket when we have Tengyun project?

China's Spaceplane Tengyun May Take Off And Land At Airports: Reports

Its Horizontal Take-off and Horizontal Landing technology edge out its U.S. equivalent, which is rocket-launched.

www.ibtimes.com

 

[Beny Karachun]

Elon Musk's pocket. At current rate, he will go bankrupt soon.

China destroys its boosters every single mission, while SpaceX crashed them 3 times out of 100 missions.

Who's really loosing money here lol?

Those boosters will fail it some point. They're supposed to be reused for a limited amount of times, not indefinitely.

Don't forget SpaceX is a private company that's being contracted to send off payloads to space. I bet they made a profit even if the launchers crashed.

Anyways, 1,000 Social Credit Points have been wired into your account and your public execution has been postponed by 5 days as a result.